WPA 2.0: Whoever Rules the Sewers Rules the City CompetitionSponsor: The Architect’s Newspaper, UCLA School of Arts and Architecture, Ziman Center for Real Estate Development Type: 2-stage Language: English Registration fee:
$40 – per student or independent team
$100 – professional team Eligibility: Designers of all fields are eligible to submit for this competition, which is staged in two phases. Multi-disciplinary teams are particularly encouraged. Awards:
$5,000 to as many as six professional competition finalists to continue to develop their proposals. Timetable:
24 July, 2009 – registration deadline
7 August, 2009 – proposals are due
21 August, 2009 – finalists announced
10 November, 2009 – phase 2 submittals due Jury:
Stan Allen – Principal, Stan Allen Architect; Dean, school of Architecture, Princeton University
Cecil Balmond – Deputy Chairman, Ove Arup and Partners
Elizabeth Diller – Principal, Diller Scofidio + Renfro
Walter Hood – Principal, Hood Design Urban Landscape + Site Architecture
Thom Mayne – Founder and Director of design, Morphosis
Marilyn Jordan Taylor – Consulting Partner, SOM; Dean, PennDesign, University of Pennsylvania Design Challenge:
WPA 2.0 encourages projects that explore the value of infrastructure not only as an engineering endeavor, but as a robust design opportunity to strengthen communities and revitalize cities. There is no requirement that proposals be located in the United States. Nevertheless, it will be important for designers to demonstrate the applicability of proposals located outside the United States to the United States context.
Beyond the mere replacement of obsolete or overtaxed infrastructure, WPA 2.0 seeks design ideas that exploit the opportunity for such solutions to be leveraged, through nested scales of thinking, into strategies that catalyze a larger and more visible public benefit. In this respect, it is looking for proposals that put architecture back to work through designs that:
– are embedded with added value (multifunctionality, imageability, public presence),
– represent potential prototypes, adaptable for use in numerous locations,
– are locally self-regulated and controlled (i.e. which “unlock” the grid),
– strategically attract investment and/or generate community stability, and
– generate new sustainability practices. Submission Requirements:
Proposals shall consist of a digital design sketchbook that outlines and illustrates:
– core premise and objectives (the problem addressed and its solutions),
– inventiveness,
– design approach, developed at a conceptual level, and
– opportunities for implementation (qualities that are tangible and concrete, such as why or how it might be financed)
The sketchbook should include both visual and textual information, with pages formatted vertically 8.5” by 11”: either in single sides or as double-page spreads. Its length must not exceed 10 sides. The digital file, in PDF format @ 300 dpi, should not exceed 10 MB. For more information, go to: http://wpa2.aud.ucla.edu/info/ |
The Makasiiniranta South Harbor Competition
 Helsinki South Harbour and Tori Quarter Suomen Ilmakuva Helsinki. Image credit/ Tietoa Finland, Janne Hirvonen
As a prelude to a competition for the design of a new Architecture and Design Museum to be located in Helsinki’s South Harbor, the City of Finland staged an open competition to establish a roadmap for the future redevelopment of the Makasiiniranta harbor area, the last old harbor area to be transformed for public use in Helsinki. The competition for the museum is scheduled to take place later this year; but the entire surrounding area has come up with a plan to review improvements for the entire harbor environment.
Read more… Young Architects in Competitions When Competitions and a New Generation of Ideas Elevate Architectural Quality 
by Jean-Pierre Chupin and G. Stanley Collyer
published by Potential Architecture Books, Montreal, Canada 2020
271 illustrations in color and black & white
Available in PDF and eBook formats
ISBN 9781988962047
What do the Vietnam Memorial, the St. Louis Arch, and the Sydney Opera House have in common? These world renowned landmarks were all designed by architects under the age of 40, and in each case they were selected through open competitions. At their best, design competitions can provide a singular opportunity for young and unknown architects to make their mark on the built environment and launch productive, fruitful careers. But what happens when design competitions are engineered to favor the established and experienced practitioners from the very outset? This comprehensive new book written by Jean-Pierre Chupin (Canadian Competitions Catalogue) and Stanley Collyer (COMPETITIONS) highlights for the crucial role competitions have played in fostering the careers of young architects, and makes an argument against the trend of invited competitions and RFQs. The authors take an in-depth look at past competitions won by young architects and planners, and survey the state of competitions through the world on a region by region basis. The end result is a compelling argument for an inclusive approach to conducting international design competitions. Download Young Architects in Competitions for free at the following link: https://crc.umontreal.ca/en/publications-libre-acces/ Vltava Philharmonic Hall Design Competition 
View to Concert Hall from bridge ©BIG
Classical music is still part of a vibrant musical scene in Prague, with at least four principal venues hosting concerts, ballet and opera. As a modern European city, the only missing venue from these choices is a state of the art concert hall. Other European neighbors have also recently staged competitions for such projects: Munich, won by Cukrowicz Nachbaur Architekten of Bregenz, Austria; Belgrade, won by AL_A of London; and Vilnius, Lithuania, won by Arquivio Architects of Spain. It should be noted, however, that one of the most important competitions for a concert hall, not only in Europe, but the world, was the 1961 Berlin Philharmonic hall competition, won by Hans Scharoun (below). It was the interior of that building, in particular, that served as a model for many others that followed, one of the first being Los Angeles’ Disney Hall by Frank Gehry. Read more… Budapest’s Nyugati Rail Station Competition 
Image courtesy Budapest Development Agency ©Grimshaw
Completed in 1877, Budapest’s Nyugati Railway Station has witnessed many of the twists and turns of Hungarian history: the Austro-Hungarian Empire, revolutions of post-World War I and 1956, and various shades of expansion and shrinkage in their territory. Its important location in Europe’s history as a contested land in southeastern Europe has not only served as a path for armies of conquest, but as a matter of great interest for major powers. Amid all the changes it has experienced, Hungary, and Budapest in particular, has retained a fascination for outsiders, making it one of Europe’s high profile tourist attractions. Read more… A Quest for that Elusive Connective Formula 
First Place: Pedestrian perspective from Parliament – Zeidler Architecture in association with David Chipperfield Architects
How do you find a common thread that can connect an eclectic collection of buildings, visually as well as physically, all located within a one-block site, located just across from Canada’s Parliament building in Ottawa. To identify this common thread that could tie everything together, the client turned to a design competition for answers. With the aid of consultants, [phase eins] from Berlin and experts from Canada’s’ own Université de Montréal’s School of Architecture, the client turned to an invited international format to finally settle on six teams that could rethink the site. Read more… Vilnius Railway Station and Public Square Competition 
Vilnius Station competition Image: ©Zaha Hadid Architects
In European cities, recent history has seen their central railway stations become the subject of upgrades, or totally new projects, many of them springing up in Eastern Europe. In most cases, the focus on this phenomena occurred several decades after earth-shaking political events. In Germany it was the construction of a new main central station (Hauptbahnhof) shortly after the reunification of Germany and Berlin. in Estonia, and now Lithuania, it has occurred after the independence of those countries in conjunction with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And in Hungary, it was the subject of a recent competition encompassing a large area surrounding the station. Read More… |
